Some Products Can Change the World

You know them: The PC, the iPhone, the browser. What does it take to develop the next groundbreaking product in the face of the naysayers?

I'm talking about something new here, not a rehash with a slight upgrade. It's always straightforward to look at the existing numbers on a product, tweak some features of the present product and voilà, you have a new product. Frankly, it might make some business sense to tweak an existing product, but real market-busting products that move companies to new heights are of another ilk.

What is a great product? First of all, it's not commonplace. Instead, it's a product that defies straight-line projections from existing products, it accomplishes a task or brings new meaning to heretofore approaches, and it satisfies the user beyond any other existing method. In a few words really new and useful.

The original IBM PC didn't look much different from other computers at the time, but the IBM brand, the availability of software, and IBM's complete documentation made it a hit.

Given that it's a departure from the existing "groove" that many companies are in, how does this happen?

First and foremost, there has to be a champion pushing for something really new. That often involves personal risk. He or she is the symbol for this product and will bear the brunt of its success or failure. You see, risk can take many forms. It could be monetary, reputation, or adjustment to responsibility. Ideally, it's the head of the organization who leads the charge. For a small company, this is the president. For a larger organization, it's often the head ofa division. It has to be someone who can command resources and withstand the onslaught of naysayers, for which there will be many, both visible and invisible.

Naysayers can cite facts and figures to show the foolishness of the undertaking. They will point to the great expense that should rightfully be going to existing products. They will further explain the excellent engineers that are being wasted on some adventure to parts unknown. Furthermore, they'll indicate that there is no evidence that anyone wants the product. All they see is failure.

Depending on their influence, authority, and yes, their deviousness, the naysayers can sideline an undertaking. The champion must understand who they are and have good counter answers. Even the head of an organization must garner support and convince folks that he knows these risks and has considered them.

The champion often needs to overcome significant obstacles that threaten the project, and even his or her position in the company. Let's face it. Costs will be underestimated by two, three, or even four times. As well, estimated development times will start out rosy, then lengthen by two, three, or even four times.

By its very nature, a significant new product is a whole new world. Even the most clairvoyant people will be wholly amazed at what they didn't realize. This is when the greatest danger of being excised will happen. Again, it's the champion who must recognize what it will take to succeed. Such questions as, "Should I continue or accept defeat?", "Do I have a fallback position?", or "Is it full steam ahead?"

Leadership will be tested and then retested. For as Harriet Beecher Stowe put it:

Never give up, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn.

For the champions, we can only hope that their judgment is sound.

The original iPhone changed life as we knew it.

Certainly, the arrival of the personal computer was such a product. There have been many others as well, such as the web browser, iPhone type products, etc. The PC is particularly significant because it was brought out by the largest computer supplier and had many detractors both within and outside of IBM. But somehow, it was allowed to continue to market. The rest is history of it transforming the computer/business world and leading to the creative destruction of the existing market. Even legendary computer pioneer, Ken Olsen, stated that there was no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.

Remember floppies? Where would we be if Mr. Dov Moran had not invented the USB flash drive in 1999? See US6148354 patent. The first model introduced had 8MBytes of flash memory and everyone said that it would be a flop (pun intended) because no one would need that much storage in their pocket. How many GBytes of storage does the average EETimes reader have in his or her pocket today?

I find that most of the time, naysayers (and often also the evangelist) simply lack perspective. It was the case with the PC, and it is now the case with IoT.

The naysayers limit their thinking on how a new invention would be used, and the overly-enthusiastic often fail to convince, for the same reason. They either denigrate, or hype up, use cases that few people believe they need.

If one views a "computer" as that big box that does the monthly payroll in a big corporation, or that analyzes reams of data in university physics labs, then of course the average joe won't see a need for such a device at home, cheap as it might be.

But Alan Turing hypothesized a general purpose problem solving machine, and that's the way computers should be viewed. So if this cheap computer is described as something that can, say, do your taxes with minimal input from you, without having to mail anything physically to anyone, or search out all retail outlets in the world for some specific object you might need, or organize and pay your bills, or allow you to manage your own savings and investments, or replace that card catalogue in your local library and give instant access, from home, to all manner of publications, then perhaps the naysaying wouldn't sound so convincing.

In the embryonic days of the single-chip computer, I knew evangelists who saw this as a great central device to manage the HVAC and lights in homes, for instance. BORING! And unnecessary too. My thinking was that PCs would get interesting for home use when they could communicate. And isn't it great that they did?

And not to mention all of the embedded computers, to replace the rube goldberg mechanical systems that used to automate functions in automobiles and appliances.

With the exception of a few strange people (like me) who want immediate access to a programmable data processing device, most people don't need a computer, per se, in their house. His statement was certainly applicable to the computers of the time.

What they need and want in their homes are various devices for entertainment, communication, games, and other purposes, all of which are most conveniently implemented by something with one or more computers inside. If the product is designed properly, the computers are invisible.